Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Trac tickets

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Trac tickets
Date: 2010-12-30 17:29:26
Message-ID: 4D1CC176.4040201@lelarge.info (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Le 30/12/2010 11:32, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 14:09, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> Le vendredi 7 août 2009 à 13:35:51, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:48, Dave Page<dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Guillaume
>>>>
>>>> Lelarge<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>>>> Le jeudi 6 août 2009 à 13:10:24, Dave Page a écrit :
>>>>>> Why are trac tickets being created for the recent change history?
>>>>>> That's what the changelog and svn history is for...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I created them to try to use the roadmap system. See this:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/roadmap
>>>>> and this:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://code.pgadmin.org/trac/query?milestone=1.10.1&order=priority&col=
>>>>> id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone&col=compone
>>>>> nt (which is kind of a changelog and a todo list)
>>>>
>>>> OK, well if you want to start maintaining this, please have a think
>>>> about how we can modify the existing processes to accomodate it. At
>>>> the very least, I would like to avoid the changelog duplication - can
>>>> we drop that file, or auto-create it for example?
>>>
>>> Yes, we should definitely be able to do that. However, I think we
>>> should do *both* for a while just to fill things with some data, so we
>>> can reasonably compare the outcome. yes, it means duplicated work
>>> during that time, but as long as we have the end-goal to drop one of
>>> the two.
>>
>> Dropping one is not enough. We need to have more. And trac gives us more than
>> just a changelog. So, I agree with Magnus. We should really check that trac
>> works great enough for us before dropping any existing processes.
> 
> Here's to bring up a really old thread.
> 

Wait, it's only 17 months old ;)

> We've run it for a while now. Are we ready to drop the changelog and
> use trac reports instead? Or are we ready to drop the changelog and
> use git log? Or a combination, for different users?
> 

No to trac reports as they ain't complete now. Dave and I talked about
that in Stuttgart, and we decided that quick bugs to fix won't have a
trac ticket. We'll only use trac's bugtracker to keep track of unfixed bugs.

I would be much more in favor to drop the changelog and use "git log"
instead.

> (Hint: I hate the changelog file because I keep forgetting to update
> it, and it sucks to handle it in the main repo due to how it
> integrates with branches)
> 

Can't agree more :)


-- 
Guillaume
 http://www.postgresql.fr
 http://dalibo.com

In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-12-30 17:33:09
Subject: Re: Trac tickets
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2010-12-30 17:25:00
Subject: Re: code.pgadmin.org

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group